The Last British King to Lead Troops & Die in Battle - Matt Limb Battlefield Tours Matt Limb Battlefield Tours The Last British King to Lead Troops & Die in Battle George II at Battle of Dettingen George II was the last British monarch born outside the British Isles of Great Britain; George was born and brought up in what is now known as Northern Germany. He became king in 1727, then during the War of the Austrian Succession, George II fought at the Battle of Dettingen on 27 June 1743; as armies from Great Britain, Hanover and Austria battled with France and thus became the last British monarch to lead an army in battle. To find the last English monarch to die leading his men in battle, we must look back another 250 hundred years. It was Richard III, King of England for just two years, from his coronation in 1483 until his death in 1485, when he dies leading his troops at the Battle of Bosworth Field.

It is this event, at Bosworth Field, that William Shakespeare illustrates in his play ‘Richard III’ with the immortal words “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse!” Richard III But while Richard III may have been the last English monarch to die leading his troops in battle and then spend centuries buried under what was to become council car park in Leicester; he was certainly not the last British monarch to do so! This mark of respect falls to James IV of Scotland, at the Battle of Flodden, sometimes referred to as The Battle of Branxton, which was fought in Northumberland on 9 September 1513, some thirty years later. King James IV lead an invading Scottish army and faced an English army commanded by the Earl of Surrey, the day ended with victory for the English army, and is the largest battle, in terms of fighting troops, fought between the two nations. James IV was killed in the battle, becoming the last monarch from the British Isles to suffer such a fate.

On 27 February 2014 / Misc Battles Search the website To Find Fathers from Omaha Beach → To visit the place a relative, or loved one, fought and to try to understand what they endured is one of the most popular reasons for a battlefield tour, and recently it was this reason that Mike and Claudia Houpt travelled from Mississippi to Normandy. Mike’s wife Claudia wanted to… Read more… → Recent Clients Comments ‘You have an excellent blend of visualisation, stories and analysis that keeps everyone engaged, it was a well balance battlefield tour and the administration was faultless; again thank you’ Gary Bateman, Scotland I really enjoyed the battlefield tour of Normandy, as I now read books or view movies, it will give me a better perspective of what they went through’ Walter Gilmer, Mississippi USA ‘… you managed to make it all so much more interesting.

The Sunken Lane where the Lancashire Fusiliers suffered so many casualties; the place poet Siegfried Sassoon won his Military Cross plus so many more interesting and moving stories, thank you’ Colonel (Retired) Potter OBE, England ‘To actually get to the spot where my Grandfather died and find where he is buried, and try to imagine just what he went through is beyond words’ Keith & Janet Ryder, New Zealand ‘Matt, you have a passion for the history and it certainly shows during your battlefield tours …. Thank You’ Walter Gilmer, Mississippi USA ‘ … We have been to the UK, Europe the Caribbean and Northern Africa and the experience you provided with your battlefield tour was certainly one of the best experiences we have ever had’ Earl T.

Stubblefield M.D., USA ‘The visit to my Great Uncles grave on that suitably wet morning was very moving and something I had always wanted to do, many thanks’ Iain Carnegie, Australia Richard III's scarred skeleton becomes a battlefield for academics | UK news | The Guardian Richard III Richard III's scarred skeleton becomes a battlefield for academics Leicester enjoys its moment in the spotlight as discovery of last Plantagenet king's bones sparks fierce debate among historians King Richard's skeleton, found under a car park in Leicester, shows a sword slash to the skull and the spine contorted by scoliosis. Photograph: Rex Features/University of Leicester Monday 4 February 2013 13.10 EST First published on Monday 4 February 2013 13.10 EST Close This article is 3 years old As in 1485, once the death of the king was confirmed , the arguments started. Was the search for the man in the car park a stunt and a media circus, or a classic piece of research archaeology based on sound science, which opens a window on a period of history fogged by Tudor propaganda? The debate will certainly last longer than Richard's two-year reign.

Before the identification had even been formally confirmed, the redoubtable historian Mary Beard had waded in on Twitter : "Gt fun & a mystery solved that we've found Richard 3. But does it have any HISTORICAL significance? (Uni of Leics overpromoting itself?))" Meanwhile, the bones that have just been confirmed as those of Richard III – the last Plantagenet king, the last English monarch to die on a battlefield, whose death ushered in the upstart Tudors – lay quietly in a calm room on the second floor of the Leicester University library, unknown to many of the students bustling in and out of the building. Inevitably, the press conference in another building – with 140 registered journalists and camera crews from seven countries – was controlled mayhem, but the university had gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the actual remains were treated with respect. The press conference had revealed the appalling nature of the injuries inflicted in the last moments of Richard's life and, perhaps even more gruesomely, in the hours afterwards.

But in the quiet room with the blinds drawn there were no banners, no university logos – still less those of the Channel 4 camera crew, which has been following the hunt from the start – just the bones, stained a reddish brown by their centuries in the clay, laid out on a black velvet cloth on four library tables pushed together, protected by a glass case. Journalists were invited to "bear witness". All visitors, including university staff, had to sign a declaration that they would make no attempt to photograph or record anything, and that they would remain silent in the room where he lay, watched over by a security guard and two university chaplains. The feet were missing, probably chopped off when a Victorian outhouse was built on the site of the long-lost Greyfriars church, missing the main skeleton by inches. The hands lay by his side, but as found suggested that he was buried with arms still bound, just as he was lugged from the battlefield.

The skull lay with the largely undamaged face up – itself a significant and sinister point, according to the experts, hiding the savage blow to the base from a halberd, a fearsome medieval pike-like weapon, which sliced through bone and into the brain and would have killed him in seconds. The shock was the spine, bent like an aerial view of the river Thames – it was not, after all, simply Tudor propaganda, which had portrayed the king as a twisted psychopath. Jo Appleby, the bones expert who excavated the skeleton and has worked on it for months, said it was contorted by scoliosis, which set in some time after he was 10, from an unknown cause. She said it would have made Richard's breathing increasingly more difficult, and taken inches off what would have been his full height of 5' 8" (172cm), a reasonably tall man for medieval times. There was another sword slash to the skull, which would also have penetrated to the brain and proved fatal in moments, but the others came after death, and were described – in an image still resonant from many battlegrounds today – as "humiliation injuries".

They could not have happened to a man protected by armour, and are consistent with the accounts of his body being stripped on the battlefield, and brought back to Leicester naked, slung over the pommel of a horse. That, almost certainly, was when the thrusting injury through the right buttock and into the pelvis happened. Professor Lin Foxhall, head of the university's archaeology department , and Bob Savage, an expert on medieval weapons from the Royal Armouries, pointed out that Richard's face was relatively undamaged. "They'd killed the king and they needed to keep him recognisable," Savage said. "To me, the injuries are fully consistent with the accounts of his dying in a melee, and [being] unhorsed – I believe he was dead within minutes of coming off his horse. But they took care not to bash the face about too much." "It's the Gaddafi effect," Foxhall said. "We saw just this in the horrible mobile-phone footage of Gaddafi being found, and you can hear the voices shouting 'not the face, don't touch the face'. It's one of those dreadful lessons from history which we never learn." The grumbles that this was all show business, not history, went on throughout the day.

Neville Morley, professor of ancient history at the University of Bristol, muttered on his Bristol Classics blog : "Whoop-de-doo … Why is it that a skeleton is interesting only if it's that of a famous person?" On her History Matters blog , Catherine Fletcher, lecturer in public history at Sheffield University, wrote: "Imagine that the Leicester archaeologists had uncovered not a royal grave, but a grave of some peasant farmers, results from which completely changed the picture of what we know about human nutrition in the 15th century. Not so glamorous, but just as important in understanding the past – perhaps more so. They wouldn't have the media pull of 'England's lost king'. Traditional 'kings and queens' history, so criticised over the decades by historians, still plays very well on TV." Foxhall, whose own field is the more ancient battlefields of Greece and Rome, said that to identify any named individual from such a remote period was "fantastically rare – and valuable.

It's the fact that he was a king that lets us get to the identification." Richard Buckley, the lead archaeologist on the project, pointed out that – apart from disentangling Richard's last day on earth from the fog of Tudor propaganda, led by its most brilliant exponent, William Shakespeare – the story of the king from the car park is also another lost strand in the history of Leicester, wreathed in rumour, until now very short on fact. Turi King, the researcher who confirmed the match of mitochondrial DNA – genetic material passed down through the mother's line – between the skeleton and the Canadian-born Michael Ibsen, who is descended from Richard's sister Anne of York, and with another newly identified but anonymous descendant, says the work continues. This phase was only completed on Saturday night, she said, but will be published in full in a peer-reviewed journal. The city is wasting no time profiting from its day in the international media spotlight. A temporary exhibition opens this week in the Guildhall, near the site, and next year a permanent new visitor centre will open, possibly on the same day that the russet bones are re-interred in a newly designed tomb in the cathedral. Expect a few of the camera crews to return.

Meanwhile, Ibsen, the man whose spit proved the vital link across almost six centuries, grew more quiet and subdued as the day wore on. "My head is no clearer now than when I first heard the news," he said. "Many, many hundreds of people died on that field that day. He was a king, but just one of the dead. He lived in very violent times, and these deaths would not have been pretty – or quick." • This article was amended on 5 February 2013 to clarify that Richard III was the last English monarch to die on a battlefield. Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? - Historum - History Forums Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? User Name Need help with the website? Contact Us anytime. War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries Page 1 of 3 Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? Members who was the last British king to go for a battle?,, Re: Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? George II at Dettingen, 1743.

Re: Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? Did he actually fight? Re: Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? Quote: Originally Posted by Belisarius Did he actually fight? Well he was the last one to actually be there on the battlefield. Kings fighting their own battles is something that died alongside chivalry, probably somewhere on the fields of Pavia... . But it was the last battle a British king was actually present at the site itself, if I'm not mistaken, he also led the troops (to some extend). Posts: 8,570 Re: Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? The king was there and in overall command, not only of the English but also of the Hanoverians as Elector of hanover. The operational commander was Field Marshal John Dalrymple, Lord Stair. But the king was the boss; they won the battle, and he gets the credit. Posts: 70 Re: Who was the last British King to fight in a battle?

The last British monarch to see action was actually George V1 who was a serving naval officer at Jutland, though not actually King at the time or even first in line to the throne. Posts: 275 Re: Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? I read an interesting aside on George II the other day; apparently gambling was wildly popular in England during this time, and there were many wagers laid on the king's survival of his campaign. It seems that the odds were 4:1 against George's death Re: Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? Quote: Originally Posted by Ivor Badger The last British monarch to see action was actually George V1 who was a serving naval officer at Jutland, though not actually King at the time or even first in line to the throne. Monarch = king. So the guy is disqualified. The question isn't which royal family member, hell wasn't that prince Harry in Afghanistan or whatever somewhere to? Re: Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? Was Richard III the last king to actually do some fighting? But yes, it is my understanding that George II was the last king to lead on the battlefield.

Posts: 19,933 Re: Who was the last British King to fight in a battle? For the record George II was also the last British monarch born outside Britain (Hannover, Germany) King George II at Dettingen, as his Horse Guards charge the French Maison du Roi. James II seemimgly was the last British monarch born in Britain to led an army in Boyne (1690). Charles Vyner Brooke 3rd Rajah of Sarawak was presumably the last monarch born in Britain to led an army in the early XX century. Last edited by sylla1; May 19th, 2010 at 12:13 AM. England's King Richard III died painfully on battlefield | Fox News England's King Richard III died painfully on battlefield Published September 16, 2014 Feb. 5, 2013: A facial reconstruction of King Richard III is displayed at a news conference in central London. (Reuters) LONDON – England's King Richard III might well have lost his kingdom for a horse.

The reviled king suffered nearly a dozen injuries on the battlefield, but the fatal blows were probably only sustained after he had to abandon his horse, according to a new paper. Since the skeleton of the 15th-century king was discovered under a parking lot in central England in 2012, scientists have done numerous studies, including an examination of his twisted spine that led Shakespeare to label him a hunchback. In the latest research, published Wednesday in the journal Lancet, scientists used computer scans and other methods to analyze the king's skeletal wounds. "Richard was probably in quite a lot of pain at the end," said Sarah Hainsworth, a professor of materials engineering at the University of Leicester and one of the study authors. She said the king was most likely attacked by numerous assailants after dismounting from his horse, which got stuck in a marsh. Richard's skeleton showed evidence of 11 injuries from weapons including daggers, swords and a long metal pole with an axe and hook that was used to pull knights off their horses. "Medieval battle was bloody and brutal," she said, noting one of the skull injuries showed a sword had pierced his head.

The nine injuries Richard suffered to his head prove the king somehow lost or took off his helmet during the battle at Bosworth Field, against Henry Tudor, on Aug. 22, 1485. He was the last English monarch to die in battle. Even if Richard's injuries had been treatable, it was highly unlikely his rivals would have shown him mercy, said Steven Gunn, an associate professor of history at Oxford University, who was not part of the research. "A live ex-king is just an embarrassment," he said. Gunn also said it was significant there were no attempts to disfigure Richard. "Having evidence that the real Richard III is dead is very useful," he said. "You don't want somebody popping up somewhere later claiming to be the real king." Hainsworth said the wounds in Richard's skeleton match historical accounts that he fought until the very end. "This doesn't tell us anything about what kind of king he was or the controversy surrounding his nephews," she said, referring to rumors that Richard murdered his two nephews to protect his throne.

"Whatever else people think about him, he fought bravely until he died." Advertisement Frequently Asked Questions | Britroyals Frequently Asked Questions When did the last British King fight in a battle? George II was the last British King to lead his army in person, during the War of the Austrian Succession, at the Battle of Dettingen in Bavaria, 27th June, 1743. The last English King to die in battle was Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in Leicestershire on 22 August 1485 defeated by Henry Tudor who became Henry VII ending the Wars of the Roses between the Houses of York and Lancaster and starting the Tudor dynasty. The last British King to die in battle was James IV of Scotland killed at the Battle of Flodden Field in Northumberland on 9 September 1513 when the Scots invaded England hoping to take advantage of Henry VIII's absence in France, but were defeated by English forces under Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey. How far back can the British Royal Family trace their roots? Is Queen Elizabeth II really directly descended from Alfred the Great?

She is the 32nd great granddaughter of King Alfred who 1,140 years ago was the first effective King of England. He ruled from 871 to 899. I thought that American Independence was in 1776. Why is it quoted as 1783? The Continental Congress of the 13 American colonies declared independence in 1776. However, the war continued and independence from Britain was not achieved until the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Was George III really mad? For most of his reign King George III was an astute king and politician with a strong sense of duty. Later in his reign he suffered from recurrent and eventually permanent mental illness. This baffled medical science at the time, although it is now generally thought that he suffered from the inherited blood disease porphyria. He suffered his first attack in 1788 and by 1810 was unfit to rule. In 1811 his son George, Prince of Wales, became Regent for 9 years until his father died in 1820. Who would now be King or Queen if Edward VIII had not abdicated?

Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 less than a year after becoming King to marry Wallis Simpson. His younger brother Bertie became King George VI and was the father of the present Queen Elizabeth II . He died in 1952, and Edward who had no children died in 1972. So even if Edward had not abdicated Elizabeth would now be Queen. She would have come to the throne in 1972 instead of 1952. Why did Edward VIII have to give up the throne to marry a divorcee but Prince Charles is still in line to the throne? Royals who are divorced or marry divorcees do not lose their position in the line of succession. Edward VIII had a number of affairs with married women including Wallis Simpson who was already divorced and still married to her second husband. His parents King George V and Queen Mary did not approve and refused to meet her. When George V died Prime Minister Baldwin made it clear that the Government, popular opinion in the country and the oversees Dominions (now the Commonwealth nations) did not approve of his plans to marry Wallis.

Social attitudes towards divorce and a women looking for a third marriage were considered scandalous at the time, and if Edward married against the advice of his Ministers it would have caused the Government to resign and a constitutional crisis. Edward chose to abdicate. The 1772 Royal Marriages Act requires members of the Royal Family to obtain permission from the Sovereign to marry. Queen Elizabeth II gave her permission for Prince Charles to marry Camilla, and more recently for Prince William to marry Catherine Middleton. Would Princess Diana have become Queen? If Prince Charles had become King during their marriage then she would have been his consort with the title Queen Diana. They divorced in 1996 and she died in a car crash in Paris on 31st August 1997. Although popularly known as 'Princess Diana' this was not her title - because she became a princess by marrying Prince Charles her title was Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales, or more simply Diana, Princess of Wales. Who is Prince Henry shown as fourth in line to the Throne? What about Prince Harry? Prince Harry's name is Henry Charles Albert David . Harry is his nickname Is Kate Middleton the first commoner to marry an heir to the throne?

The Queen's husband Prince Philip is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria, Diana's family had titled ancestry and Camilla is the granddaughter of a baron. Prince William's wife Catherine (Kate) nee Middleton comes from a middle class background with no aristocratic or titled connections. She is not however the first commoner to marry a future king. Notably Anne Hyde first wife of King James II, and Elizabeth Woodville, who married King Edward IV in 1464 and became a key figure in the Wars of the Roses were commoners with no direct connections to nobility. Edward VIII married Wallis Simpson but had already abdicated as King. Why are William and Harry referred to as Wales when their name is Windsor? Members of the Royal Family who are titled His (or Her) Royal Highness do not traditionally need or use a surname. Windsor is the name of the Royal House to which they belong. Their titles are HRH Prince William of Wales and HRH Prince Henry of Wales . During their tours of duty with the Armed Forces, the Princes chose to show their surname as Wales.

Members of the royal family who are not HRH (for example Prince Edward's children Louise and James) use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. Why are Prince Andrew's daughters princesses when Prince Edward's daughter is not? Also why do Princess Anne's children Peter and Zara not have titles? You become a prince by being the son of a prince, or princess by being the daughter of a prince or by marrying a prince. So Prince Andrew's daughters are Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. The Queen's daughter Princess Anne has the title Princess Royal, but her children Peter and Zara do not have titles. It is traditional that they would have been made a Duke and Duchess or Earl and Countess, but it is understood that Princess Anne asked the Queen not to give her children titles so they could live as private individuals. Prince Edward declined to be made a Duke on his marriage and became Earl of Wessex, so that his wife Sophie is Countess of Wessex. The Royal Family is descended directly from the Anglo-Saxon Kings of Wessex. On their marriage is was anounced that their children would not be titled Prince and Princess but as the children of an Earl, so they are Lady Louise and James Viscount Severn.

Why are Roman Catholics excluded from the Line of Succession to the British throne? In 1534 Henry VII I broke with the Church of Rome over his divorce from Catherine of Aragon and made himself Head of the Church of England. Every King or Queen since Elizabeth 1 has held the title 'Supreme Governor of the Church of England' and 'Defender of the Faith'. As it is a Protestant Church all those in the Royal line of succession and their spouses have to be Protestants. The Act of Settlement (1701) laid down that only Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia, granddaughter of James I, may succeed to the British throne. Neither Catholics, nor those who marry a Catholic, nor those born out of wedlock, may remain in the line of succession. Prince Charles has let it be known that when he becomes King he will take the title 'Defender of Faith' instead of' 'Defender of the Faith' to include faiths other than the established Church of England. In Aprl 2013 the Succession to the Crown Bill 2013 changed the succession laws so that a person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown as a result of marrying a Roman Catholic .

They will however not be allowed to become a Roman Catholic as the British Monarch is head of the Protestant Church of England. Why are younger brothers higher in the line of succession than their older sisters? The line of succession to the British throne used until recently the system of male primogeniture whereby younger sons have precedence over their older sisters. So Prince Andrew and Prince Edward are above their older sister Princess Anne in line of succession, and Prince Edward's son James is above his sister Louise. While male precedence may now be considered to be out of line with current 'equal-rights' thinking and is proposed to be changed, it has not prevented some of the most successful and longest reigning British monarchs from being queens including Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II. It does allow the succession to inherit through the female line, so the children of daughters can succeed to the throne as is the case with the current Queen. The French and German monarchies used a system of Salic law whereby females had no right to inherit and could not pass it to their offspring. The last time that the British throne passed to a son in precedence to a first born daughter was when Queen Victoria's son Edward VII inherited the throne over his older sister Princess Victoria.

Had she become queen she would have been Queen Victoria II and her son Kaiser Wilhelm II would have also been King William V and ruled over a huge combined British and German Empire. This could have significantly changed 20th century European history with the 1st World War unlikely to have happened as it did but replaced with other nationalist, republican and fascist struggles leading possibly to the downfall of both monarchies and a changed map of Europe. In Aprl 2013 the Succession to the Crown Bill 2013 changed the succession laws so that a person is able to marry a Roman Catholic and remain in the line of successsion, and the right of male primogeniture no longer applies to children born after 28 October 2011. It meant that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child had been a girl and their second a boy, male primogenture would no longer have applied and he would not have had precedence over his older sister. However, their first child born on 22 July 2013 was a boy Prince George so it did not apply. Their second child Princess Charlotte will not lose her place even if she has a younger brother.

This current line of succession is shown at Line of Succession. King William IV was 64 years old when he became king in 1830 and succeeded his elder brother George IV. Prince Charles the current heir to the throne became 68 on 14th November 2016 and is now the longest waiting heir to the throne. Edward VII became king after the death of his mother Queen Victoria in 1901 when he was 59 years and 2 months old. Kings & Queens by age of accession to the throne . Could the Queen choose to pass the throne directly to Prince William? The Queen cannot choose. Prince Charles as her eldest son and Prince of Wales is next in line to the throne and will become King as long as he is living when the Queen dies or should she abdicate. It would require a change to British constitutional law for this not to happen. Will Charles become King George VII? Charles can choose to rule as King Charles III or take another name. Kings often take a different regnal (ruling) name from their first given name.

Charles' grandfather George VI was Prince Albert ("Bertie") before he became king, and his great great grandfather Edward VII was also Prince Albert. King Charles I was beheaded in 1649 after the English Civil War, and Charles II was popularly known as the 'merrie' monarch as he had so many mistresses. Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) the Stuart pretender to the throne styled himself Charles III before he was defeated at Culloden in 1746. It is thought possible that Prince Charles may choose to become King George VII after his grandfather. Will Camilla become Queen? Prince Charles and Camilla were married on 9th April 2005. She was given the title Duchess of Cornwall because of sensitivity following the death of Diana. As the wife of the Prince of Wales her title should be Princess of Wales and, although before the marriage it was announced that she would take the title Princess consort, she is expected to become Queen consort when Charles becomes King. Is there a royal connection between Camilla's family and the royal family? In 1889 Camilla's great-grandmother Alice Keppel was the mistress of Edward VII when he was Prince of Wales.

Edward VII was the great-great-grandfather of Prince Charles the current Prince of Wales. Why is the Queen's husband Prince Philip not King Philip? The husband of a queen is known as a Prince consort and does not become King. Queen Victoria's husband was Prince Albert, and Queen Elizabeth's husband is Prince Philip The Duke of Edinburgh . The wife of a king is a Queen consort and does take the title Queen although she does not rule as the monarch. The only exceptions were William III and Mary II who ruled jointly from 1689 until Mary's death in 1694. Were Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip related before their marriage? The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh are both great great grandchildren of Queen Victoria . The Queen is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria’s eldest son King Edward VII and the Duke of Edinburgh is a direct descendant of Queen Victoria’s daughter Princess Alice. What relation is Queen Elizabeth II to King George III ? George III was her 3rd great grandfather.

If you you follow the line of succession on her grandfather's side - George VI (father), George V (grandfather), Edward VII (great grandfather), Victoria (2nd great grandmother) , Edward Duke of Kent (3rd great grandfather), George III (4th great grandfather) - then he was her 4th great grandfather. However her grandmother Queen Mary of Teck was also descended from George III - she and George V were 2nd cousins once removed. If you follow Queen Elizabeth's line through her grandmother - George VI (father), Queen Mary (grandmother), Mary Adelaide (great grandmother), Adolphus of Hanover (2nd great grandfather), George III (3rd great-grandfather) - he is more closely related as her 3rd great grandfather. You can see this on the Royal Family tree . How rich is Queen Elizabeth? Her estimated personal fortune is around £350 million (US $435M). The Duchy of Lancaster estate, a portfolio of land, property and assets, is held in trust for the monarch and worth around £348 million.

She also owns properties privately that have never been valued, including Sandringham House, Balmoral Castle reputedly worth £160 million and the Castle of Mey. Her investment portfolio in blue-chip British companies is around £110 million, her personal art collection is worth at least £2 million, and she owns personal jewellery and a large stamp collection built up by her grandfather George V. Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Crown Jewels and the Royal Art Collection are held in trust for the nation. The Crown Estate, which manages on behalf of the monarch the property and land owned by the Crown, including properties in Regent Street and St James in London, offshore wind farms around Britain's coast and rural estates in Scotland, is worth around £11 billion and generates £285 million (2014/15) income a year. This income is given to the national Treasury for use in public finances, in return for a grant (£38 million in 2012) for the cost of running the monarchy. This arrangement dated from 1760 when George III gave up the right to the income from the Crown's estates in return for a Civil List paid to members of the Royal Family.

In 2013 this changed to a Sovereign Support Grant based on 15% of the income from the Crown Estate. This means that for the year from April 2016 the nation will keep £242.2 million of the Crown Estates income, and the monarchy will receive £42.7 miilion towards the cost of the Royal household, their travel, attending formal functions and repairs to buildings including Kensington Palace which is the home of Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge and their children Prince George and Princess Charlotte. Does the Queen pay taxes? Yes, in 1992 The Queen offered to pay income tax and capital gains tax on a voluntary basis. Since 1993, her personal income has been taxable as for any other UK taxpayer. Does the Queen rule or does Parliament? The British Monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the King or Queen reigns as Head of State but with limits to their power, and the day-to-day government is carried out by Parliament. The political party with the most elected seats in the House of Commons elects a Prime Minister who is invited by the monarch to form a government.

A new Parliament is opened by the monarch in an official ceremony, and the Prime Minister during his or her term in office regularly meets with the King or Queen to discuss political matters and events. How many British Prime Ministers and US Presidents have there been during the Queen's reign? Queen Elizabeth II has worked with 13 different Prime Ministers since she became Queen: Winston Churchill (1951-55), Anthony Eden (1955-59), Harold Macmillan (1959-63), Alec Douglas-Home (1963-64), Harold Wilson (1964-70 & 1974-76), Edward Heath (1970-74), James Callaghan (1976-79), Margaret Thatcher (1979-90), John Major (1990-97), Tony Blair (1997-2007), Gordon Brown (2007-2010), David Cameron (2010-2016) and Theresa May (2016 - present).

There have been 12 US Presidents during her reign: Harry Truman (1945-1953), Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), John Kennedy (1961-63), Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), Richard Nixon (1969-74), Gerald Ford, (1974-77), James Carter (1977-81), Ronald Reagan (1981-89), George Bush (1989-93), William Clinton (1993-2001), George W Bush (2001-09), Barack Obama, (2009-present). There have been 7 Archbishops of Canterbury and 7 Popes during her reign. Which King or Queen reigned for the longest time? The longest reigning British monarch is Queen Elizabeth II who including today has reigned for 64 years, 11 months, and 13 days which is the longest reign in over 1,200 years of British History.

On 10th September 2015 she surpassed her great great grandmother Queen Victoria who reigned for 63 years, 7 months and 2 days from 1837-1901. See Kings and Queens by length of reign . Which King or Queen reigned for the shortest time? Edward VI named his cousin Lady Jane Grey as his successor and she was proclaimed queen on July 10, 1553 by her father-in-law the Duke of Northumberland. She was 16 years old. Meanwhile Edward's half sister Mary eldest daughter of Henry VIII was also proclaimed queen. The situation was resolved 9 days later on July 19 1553 when Mary arrived in London and was proclaimed as the rightful queen. Mary was crowned Queen on Oct 1, 1553. Lady Jane Grey was executed on February 12, 1554. Another who was not crowned was Edward V . His father Edward IV died on April 9, 1483, but he was usurped by his uncle Richard III who proclaimed himself king 2 months later on June 26 and crowned on July 6, 1483.

The date that Edward died is unknown - he was presumed murdered with his brother in the Tower of London at sometime in September that year. The shortest reigning crowned king was Edmund II for 7 months from 25 April - 30 November 1016. Kings and Queens by length of reign . Which King had the most illegitimate children? Henry I is purported to have had 20-25 illegitimate children by at least six women, but few details are known. Charles II famously fathered numerous illegitimate children, of whom he acknowledged fourteen. His mistresses included Lucy Walter (2 children), Moll Davis (1) , Nell Gwyne (2), Louise de Keroualle (1), Barbara Villiers (6), Elizabeth Killigrew (1), Catherine Pegg (1), Frances Stuart (became the face of Britannia on coins), and at least five others. William IV had 10 illegitimate children born between 1794 and 1807 by his mistress actress Dorothea Bland (known as Mrs Jordan). Is David Cameron descended from royalty? How close would he be in line to the throne?

David Cameron, the previous British Prime Minister, is the great, great, great grandson of Elizabeth Fitzclarence (Jan 17, 1801 - Jan 16, 1856) who was an illegitimate daughter of William IV and his mistress Irish actress Dorothea Bland who was known by her stage name as 'Mrs Jordan'. They lived together for 20 years when he was Duke of Clarence and had 5 sons and 5 daughters. When he became heir to the throne William married Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen but they had no surviving children so when he died having no legitimate children his niece Victoria became Queen. David Cameron is the 5th cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II, but illegitimate lines have no claim to the throne. The Royal Marriage act of 1772, instigated by William IV's father George III, requires members of the royal family to obtain permission from the monarch to marry. So William and Dorothea would have had to get permission from his brother George IV to marry and it would also have required ratification by Parliament.

She was Catholic and would have had to renounce her Catholic faith for William to remain in the line of succession to the throne. In the very unlikely event that they had been allowed to marry and had done so before their children were born then their eldest son George Augustus would have had a claim to the throne. His great grandson Geoffrey Fitzclarence, 5th Earl of Munster, was a Conservative politician in Winston Churchill's government. David Cameron's line through their 3rd daughter Elizabeth would have had only a very remote claim. How big was Henry VIII? When Henry VII I came to the throne in April 1509 he was 17 years old, 6ft 2in tall, and had pale skin, blue eyes and auburn hair. He was physically active and enjoyed sport, hunting and jousting. A Venetian visitor described him as 'His Majesty is the handsomest potentate I ever set eyes on, a vigorous player of tennis, rider of horses, and skilled wrestler'. However he became fatter with age and gluttony.

His suits of armour show that in 1512 he had a 32 inch waist , which increased to 35 inch by 1520s, and then grew to an enormous 54 inch by 1545. He suffered increasingly of ill health, swelling of the joints and an ulcerated leg claimed to have been caused by a jousting accident. His pain added to his mood swings and unpredictable temper. In 1544 his portrait shows him puffy and bloated. By 1546 he could hardly walk and was carried around on a wooden chair . He had to be winched on to his horse and his armour cut open to accommodate his swollen legs. He is estimated to have weighed 25 stone (350 lbs or 158kg) when he died in January 1547 Why was Queen Mary I known as Bloody Mary? Queen Mary's father Henry VIII split with Rome over his divorce from her mother Catherine of Aragon and made himself head of the Protestant Church of England. When she became queen, Mary sought to re-establish Roman Catholicism as the official religion and carried out persecution of Protestant clergy and followers.

Over 200 died including Thomas Cranmer and several bishops who were burnt at the stake between 1555 and Mary's death in 1558. She was succeeded by her half sister Elizabeth I , daughter of Ann Boleyn, who re-established Protestantism as the official Church of England. How many British monarchs have been killed while they were king or queen? - King Edmund I was killed in 946 during a feast at Pucklechurch, Gloucestershire, by an outlawed robber. - King Edward The Martyr was murdered by members of Aethelred's household at Corfe Castle in 978 - King Edmund II Ironside was assassinated in London in 1016 - King Harold II was killed by an arrow in his eye at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. - King William I The Conqueror suffered a fatal internal injury in 1087 after being thrown against the pommel of his saddle near Nantes in France. - King William II Rufus was killed in 1100 with an arrow while hunting in the New Forest.

Supposedly an accident, it has been suggested that he was shot deliberately on the instructions of his brother Henry. - Richard I The Lion Heart was killed by a crossbow bolt while besieging Châlus-Chabrol in France in 1199. - Edward II was murdered in 1327 at Berkeley Castle on the orders of his wife, Isabella - Richard II was starved to death in 1400 while imprisioned in Pontefract castle. He had been forced to abdicate in 1399 by his cousin Henry IV Bolingbroke. - Henry VI was murdered in the Tower of London in 1471 during the 'Wars of the Roses' between the Lancastrians and Yorkists. - Edward V and his younger brother were imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1483 and never seen again. Their fate remains a mystery but the two princes are believed to have been murdered on orders from their uncle Richard III. - Richard III was killed in 1485 at the Battle of Bosworth Field. - Henry VIII executed two of his six wives, Anne Boleyn in 1536 and Catherine Howard in 1542.

- Charles I was executed by Parliament in 1649 following the Civil War. Scottish Kings killed include James II at Roxburgh in 1460 when a cannon exploded, James III in battle near Stirling in 1488 by supporters of his son, James IV by Henry VIII's forces at Flodden in 1513, and Mary Queen of Scots executed in 1587 on orders from her cousin Elizabeth I. Why was Edward I not Edward IV as he followed Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr & Edward the Confessor? The practice of using Roman numerals to distinguish kings and queens started only after there had been several with the same name, and particularly when there was a succession of father, son, grandson like Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III. Before then it was common for chroniclers and historians to use sobriquets such as Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr, Edward the Confessor, Edmund Ironside, Aethelred the Unready, Alfred the Great, Harold Harefoot etc before this became impractical. It would be interesting to consider how the present Queen would be known if she were to be referred to in this way.

'Elizabeth the Great', 'Elizabeth the Steadfast ', 'Elizabeth the Dutiful', have been suggested, as well as 'Elizabeth the Diplomat' for her work and visits to so many countries, 'Elizabeth the Survivor' referring to her reign as the longest in British history,'Elizabeth the Wise', 'Elizabeth the Magnificent', 'Elizabeth the Supreme', 'Elizabeth the Faithful' for her untiring service over 60 years to her people and the Commonweatlh, 'Elizabeth the Enduring', 'Elizabeth the Correct', 'Elizabeth,the Benevolent', 'Elizabeth,the Tolerant', 'Elizabeth the Stalwart', 'Elizabeth the Beloved' and 'Elizabeth Britannia'. If you have a suggestion please contact us . What about King Arthur of the knights of the round table and Camelot? King Arthur is a legend and folklore of a Celtic king who fought to defend Britain from Saxon invaders in the 6th century. There is no historical evidence that he existed. Interestingly, Henry VII sought to revive the legend naming his eldest son Arthur. Unfortunately Prince Arthur died in 1502 aged 15 before he became King. His younger brother Henry followed his father instead and became Henry VIII .

Why was there no king or queen between 1649 and 1660? The English Civil War (1642-1649) was fought between the royalist forces loyal to King Charles I and the parliamentarians led by Oliver Cromwell. The Royalist were defeated at the Battle of Naseby in 1645 and following attempts to organize a Scottish invasion, Charles was caught and executed on January 30, 1649. It was the first time a British monarch had ever been publicly executed in recorded history. After the execution of the King, a republic was declared known as the Commonwealth of England (1649-1653) and then the Protectorate (1653-1658) with rule by parliament under Cromwell. Following his death in 1658, Cromwell was succeeded briefly by his son Richard before the monarchy was restored and Charles II became king in 1660. What is the Stone of Destiny? The Stone of Destiny is a symbolic stone that was used in the crowning of Kings of Scotland at the Palace of Scone in Perthshire, Scotland.

It is a block of sandstone which measures approximately 26 inches long x 16 wide x 11 high which rested beneath the throne. According to legend it was brought to Scotland by Fergus Mor from Ireland, where it had reached by way of Spain and Egypt from the Holy Land. It was used in the crowning of kings from Kenneth MacAlpin in 841 to John Balliol in 1292. In 1296 King Edward I of England took the stone to London where it was kept in Westminster Abbey for use in coronations. In 1950 a group of students stole the stone and took it back to Scotland in two pieces which were repaired by a Glasgow stone mason. They left it at Arbroath Abbey from where it was returned to Westminster Abbey. In 1996 the British Government decided in response to calls by Scottish nationalists to return it to Scotland. It arrived back on St Andrews Day 30 November 1996, almost exactly 700 years after it had been removed by Edward, and is now in Edinburgh Castle. When did Wales become part of the United Kingdom?

Wales became incorporated into England under the Statute of Rhuddlan in 1284, after it had been annexed by Edward I of England in 1282. Edward dubbed his eldest son Edward Prince of Wales, since which time the eldest son of each English monarch has borne the same title. In the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, Wales became legally part of the Kingdom of England, and subsequently part of the United Kingdom. When did Scotland become part of the United Kingdom? The Crowns of England and Scotland were united in 1603 when James VI King of Scotland became James I King of England. In October 1604, one year later , he decreed that the Royal Title would use the term Great Brittaine to refer to the "one Imperiall Crowne" made up of England and Scotland. However despite James' wishes political union between Scotland and England did not take place until 1707 in the reign of Queen Anne. See union of the United Kingdom . When did Ireland become part of the United Kingdom?

Ireland became part of the United Kingdom in 1800 when the Act of Union with Ireland was passed by both the Irish and British parliaments Why is Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom when Southern Ireland is a different country? Northern Ireland, predominantly Protestant, and Southern Ireland, Catholic, split in 1920 with 6 of the 9 counties of Ulster remaining within the United Kingdom, and the remaining 26 counties being given home rule under the Government of Ireland Act. In 1922 the Southern counties became the Irish Free State and then since 1949 the Republic of Ireland. Who was Richard III - Last Plantagenet King to die in battle -Timeline - University of Leicester Who was Richard III? A Plantagenet primer on the last English king to die in battle. Although he only ruled for two years – from 1483 to 1485 – Richard III stands out among his peers as one of the most famous (or infamous) Kings of England. But who was he? And why does he continue to inspire such interest?

Richard was born in Fotheringhay Castle, Northamptonshire on 2 October 1452 – about 30 miles (50km) from Leicester and only about 40 miles (65km - two days’ ride) from Bosworth where he met his end a third of a century later. Richard and his older brother Edward were the great-great-grandchildren of Edward III, a line of descent which was used to justify the claim to the throne by the House of York during the Wars of the Roses (the House of Lancaster was also descended from Edward III, via a different route). The Princes in the Tower The Princes in the Tower The Two Princes Edward and Richard in the Tower, 1483 by Sir John Everett Millais, 1878. Edward ruled as King Edward IV from 1461 until 1470 and again from 1471 until his death in 1483, when his 12-year-old son succeeded as Edward V, with Richard named Lord Protector.

Young Edward and his brother moved into the Tower of London (which was then a royal palace, not a prison) but in June their parents’ marriage was declared invalid, making the princes illegitimate and hence their uncle became the heir apparent. Richard lost no time in being crowned King Richard III and the two boys were not seen again. Thus began the legend of ‘the Princes in the Tower’ and a long-standing popular belief that Richard had his nephews murdered in order to remove any competing claim to the throne. This has been widely debated for many years, with passionate arguments made both for and against Richard. Death and disappearance After defeating an unsuccessful rebellion in October 1483, Richard led his army to Bosworth in Leicestershire two years later to face Henry Tudor (whose somewhat tenuous claim to the throne was also through descent from Edward III). On 22 August 1485, Richard was killed at Bosworth Field, the last English King to die in battle, thereby bringing to an end both the Plantagenet dynasty and the Wars of the Roses. Henry Tudor was crowned King Henry VII.

Richard’s body was brought back to Leicester, publicly displayed and then given for burial to a group of Franciscan friars. An alabaster tomb monument was constructed over the grave in 1495, paid for by the new King. With the dissolution of the monasteries (by Henry Tudor’s son, Henry VIII) that friary disappeared and along with it any clear record of Richard’s grave. Stories and rumours about where Richard’s mortal remains lie – or what happened to them – have circulated over the ensuing centuries, but most of these have subsequently been shown to be tall tales. Re-evaluating Richard Portrait of Richard III of England, painted c. 1520 (approximate date from tree-rings on panel), after a lost original, for the Paston family, now owned by the Society of Antiquaries, London. History, they say, is written by the victors. Tudor writers and artists had no qualms about depicting Richard III as an evil tyrant and child-murderer, as well as a crippled hunchback.

Shakespeare’s eponymous play, written 106 years after Richard’s death, cemented the King’s bad reputation (and appearance) among the general public for centuries, although scholars including Francis Bacon and Horace Walpole sought to re-evaluate his reign. In 1924 the Richard III Society was founded, aiming to challenge accepted beliefs and assumptions about ‘the last Plantagenet’, not least the accusation of murder and the popular depiction of Richard as having a crooked spine. Among the inarguably good works of this popular King, they pointed out, were a number of significant changes to English law, including the presumption of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and a reformation of the jury system. With a controversial claim to the throne, accusations of blood on his hands, a violent and gory death, and a bad press (largely derived from a classic of English literature) – not forgetting serious debate about his physical appearance – it is no wonder that Richard III continues to fascinate historians, scholars and the public in the 21st century. Timeline Checkmate – Which of History’s Kings Died in Battle? | militaryhistorynow.com Checkmate – Which of History’s Kings Died in Battle?

• 8 Comments King Harold of England dies at the Battle of Hastings as depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry. “Prior to the age of muskets, kings and princes often personally lead their armies into battle. Predictably, a number of these fighting monarchs would be struck down in the action.” Sweden’s Charles XII. IT WAS 1700 when an alliance of nations including Russia, Poland, Prussia, Saxony and Denmark-Norway joined forces to chase the Swedes from territories in Northern Europe. In addition to fielding a larger army than the lone Scandinavian power, the aggressors also had one more thing going for them: Sweden’s ruler,the teenaged Charles XII , was unproven as a wartime leader. Not surprisingly, most expected Charles to be a pushover. [1] Unfortunately for the alliance, the 18-year-old monarch turned out to be a tough and resourceful strategist. Within six years, the young king and his army had defeated the coalition, save for Russia. Although his subsequent march on Moscow in 1709 would end in defeat and exile for Charles, the now veteran ruler would return to lead his troops again in a series of new campaigns against both Norway and Russia.

In 1718, while besieging the city of Haldenm, Norway, Charles was struck in the head by a musket ball. The wound proved fatal. And while the leaderless Swedes abandoned Halden and eventually give up most of their empire in Europe, the death of Charles would hold perhaps an even greater significance for history – it would be the last time a European monarch would die in battle. While having a ruler fall in combat was certainly rare, it was by no means unheard of. In fact, prior to the age of muskets, kings and princes would often lead their armies from the front, exposing themselves to many of the same risks faced by their men. Predictably, a number of these fighting monarchs would be struck down in the action. Here are a few of history’s fallen warrior kings. Unlucky Englishmen Harold is struck down at the Battle of Hastings. At least three kings of England died in action between the 11th and 15th centuries. The first was Harold II , the last Anglo Saxon ruler of England.

After killing the Viking king Harald Sigurdsson (yes, another “Harold”) at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066, England’s Harold famously fell near Hastings just a few days later. Reports on how the ruler was perished vary – some suggest that Harold was fatally cleaved in a melee with Norman knights led by William the Conqueror. However, the famous Bayeux Tapestry suggests that the ill-fated monarch took an arrow in the eye. In any case, with their king slain, the Anglo-Saxons fled the field and eventually ceded control of England to William. William’s great great grandson, Richard I would be best known for his exploits during the Third Crusade . Nicknamed the Lionhearted for his prowess on the battlefield, Richard would die in 1199 at the age of 42, not at the hands of the Saracens in the Holy Land, but from a crossbow bolt in Aquitaine, France while taking on some rebellious nobles. After being shot in the neck while inspecting a siege of an enemy castle in Limosin, Richard’s wound became infected and he died.

The last king of William’s Plantagenet dynasty, Richard III would fall in 1485 during the final battle of the War of the Roses , a civil war that pitted England’s royal family against the Tudors. Badly outnumbered and with his own forces defecting to the enemy in droves, Richard tried to pull off a daring reversal by leading a hasty cavalry charge across Bosworth Field right at the enemy leader, Henry Tudor himself. In the ensuing carnage, Richard was struck in the head by a poleaxe so hard it drove his helmet into his skull. Richard’s last words, “Treason, treason, treason!”, were directed at his one of his turncoat nobles.[2] Other Fallen Monarchs The Battle of Clontarf. The English weren’t the only ones to lose kings in battle.The Irish ruler, Brian Boru would fall during the Battle of Clontarf near Dublin on Good Friday in 1014. Brian’s own son and a number of his nobles would also fall that day at the hands of Viking mercenaries working for the rival King of Lienster.

Scotland’s James IV died at the Battle of Flodden in 1513 after declaring war on England to support his own French allies. It’s not clear how James, the last British king to fall in battle, was killed. However, a contemporary characterized him as reckless and foolhardy on the battlefield, often rushing off without support or without even notifying his own handlers. [3] France would lose her share of monarchs as well. The first being Clodomer , one of the sons of the Frankish ruler Clovis I. The unlucky monarch was struck dead at the battle of Battle of Vézeronce on June 25, 524 during the Burgundian War – a conflict that pitted Clovis’ four sons and heirs against one another for control of his realm. Another Frankish ruler, Robert I would also die in battle in 923. In fact, Robert would be personally slain by the Carolingian ruler Charles the Simple as the two met in one-on-one combat. While not a Frenchman himself, the blind king John of Bohemia would die in arms as an ally of France while leading his troops against the English at the Battle of Crecy in 1346.

Bulgaria also has a tradition of losing monarchs on the field. After a long and bloody struggle against the Mongols, King Constantine Tikh would die in a civil war against his own people in 1277. Fifty-three years later, Michael III of Bulgaria was fatally crushed under his own horse while doing battle against the Serbs. Some accounts indicate he died later of wounds sustained in combat, although other sources say Michael was captured and executed by the Serbians. [4] Old School King Killing King Leonidas of Sparta lost more than just his pants at Thermopylae. The ancient world saw a number of its rulers fall in combat too. Anyone who reads comic books knows the story of how the Spartan ruler Leonidas died in 480 BCE with a puny force of 300 hoplites at Thermopylae while facing tens of thousands of Persians. What many might not know is that between 740 BCE and 265 BCE, Sparta would lose no fewer than five other rulers in battle: Telacus, Cleombrotus I, Archidamus III, Agis III and Areus I .

Even Roman emperors weren’t immune from the dangers of combat. After being ruler for only a month in 238 CE, the emperor Gordian II died near Carthage in the thick of a civil war that saw various factions fight for control of the throne. Amazingly, the year Gordian died, Rome would see a total of six different emperors come and go (although not in action). Eleven years later, the Syrian-born emperor Philip the Arab died putting down a rebellion started by the next Roman emperor Decius. After only two years in power, Decius himself, along with his co-ruling son Herennius Etruscus , fell to a combined force of Scythians and Goths at the Battle of Abritus . Over the next 120 years even more Roman emperors die on the battlefield. The 58th Roman emperor, Maxentius drowned in 312 after falling into the Tiber River following his army’s route at the hands of the Christian usurper Constantine the Great. Twenty-eight years later, Constantine’s own son, Constantine II , was struck down when battling his own brothers for control of the empire following the death of their illustrious father.

In 363, Julian the Apostate of the Eastern Empire died an agonizing death when he was skewered through the intestines by a Persian spearman at the Battle of Sammara. And Valens I was killed 15 years later in a battle against the Goths. Some accounts say the emperor was shot in face with an arrow, while others record that he was carried wounded from the field to a nearby hut that was then surrounded and burned by enemy cavalry. [5] The Queen is Dead Boudica, queen of the Iceni, was last seen on Watling Street. While fewer women rulers would take up the sword throughout history, some of those who did met grizzly ends. Consider Boudicca , queen of the Icceni tribe of Great Britain. In the year 61, the legendary monarch led an abortive uprising against Roman conquerors that would lead to her death at the Battle of Watling Street , but not before she and her followers torched Londinium, killing an estimated 70,000 Romans (a figure many have since disputed). [6] Sometimes it’s not so good to be king (or in Boudicca’s case queen).

(originally published in MilitaryHistoryNow.com on Aug. 3, 2012) ___________________________________________ Did you like this story? Please rate it below and let us know what you think. Comments are always welcome too. If you’d like to receive alerts about the latest articles and posts, click on the link in the upper right margin marked “FOLLOW THIS BLOG”. And don’t forget to follow us on Twitter. SOURCES

Question: Who was the last English monarch to die on the battlefield?
Answer: Richard III